Specificity of language regarding content warnings

Hi everyone. I was reviewing our code of conduct and feel that the language regarding content warnings is pretty vague. I realize looking back I missed the opportunity last year to participate in a conversation going over the code of conduct (I was home with my kid and busier then) but nonetheless think it's likely we'll continue to grow with the way things seem to be going on meta and twitter and we might benefit from looking at this in particular.

My main concern is around the language of distressing content likely to be hurtful to others. Distressing content is likely to vary from person to person. I kind of worry such vague language could present some issues down the line, if distress alone is the bar, it could be leveraged in bad faith or in a way that's disruptive to what feels like a free and open environment if that makes sense. 

Personally I think it's important to balance a level of self-responsibility in terms of managing personal distress tolerance because I feel strongly about open self-expression, barring of course detailed graphic content and outright abusive, harassing, cruel etc behavior. I think that "includes discussions or depictions of violence, sexually explicit material, and/or common PT triggers" covers that fairly well but might benefit from some more exploration or specificity. For instance there are many common triggers and anticipating, or being expected to remember and accommodate all of them feels unreasonable to me.

Perhaps it would be helpful to also include expectations around personal distress management and practicing differentiation with one another. And responsibility to use functions that protect one from content one doesn't wish to see. I think having that specificity could help avoid potential conflicts and set a clearer bar around what's expected.

I'm curious to hear people's thoughts on this.